Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:39PM
from the i-thought-it-was-for-fighting-robots dept.

Following news this week of a game developer who turned the Android version of a game free because of piracy concerns, software developer Matt Gemmell has written a lengthy post explaining why he thinks Android apps are laboring under a broken business model. "People have to get paid. There has to be a revenue stream. You can’t reliably have that revenue stream if the platform itself and the damaged philosophy behind it actively sabotages commerce. If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down. Just like in real life, closing the door and locking it helps make sure that your money remains yours. Bad behaviour has to be more difficult than good behaviour - and good behaviour means paying for your software." He also has some harsh arguments about some of the assumptions and philosophies underpinning the an industry built on an open platform. "Nerds like to say that people care about choice at that level. Nerds are wrong. Nerds care about choice, and nerds are such a tiny minority of people that nobody else much cares what the hell they think. Android is designed with far too much nerd philosophy, and open is gravy to those people because it’s synonymous with customization. ... Open is broken as a money-making platform model, unless you’re making the OS or the handsets. Most of us aren't doing that."

Isn't this the same app that was "pay to win"(pay for the app, then pay another $6 to win, then pay more, and if you do anything that causes a loss in data on your phone, you get screwed out of everything) and people just said: "screw you and shove it up your pie hole." Pretty sure it was.

Unless the dev can explain a reason why a game needs:
retrieve running apps
Allows the app to retrieve information about currently and recently running tasks. Malicious apps may discover private information about other apps.

Other than the obvious reason that it wants to know everything you're running on your phone to report back to the developer.

And you suggest that it being a poor game is a good reason to pirate it?

I'm suggesting that there's a relative cause and effect to poor business decisions, this is more so true with software than physical goods. People are more likely to pirate something, especially if they feel they're getting reamed over, and reamed over hard. Especially by a developer who's out for an extra hard screw-over.

I see, I would probably buy another game instead but I guess that's just me.

I'd agree, and so would I. Then again, I'd also expect a developer to be up front and honest with me to. Rather than trying to throw a hissy fit in front of the world, then trying to blame piracy. I remember we've seen this monster with a variety of topics before too. In most cases, piracy isn't the monster under the bed, eating children. Now if he'd given the game away free, then sold the things in game. No one would have made a stink over it. Plenty of people make money off their games like that.

The mobile game world is an ocean of shit. Games are either crippled (sorry, "freemium") or just bad shovelware, and finding one that's neither is a futile exercise. When it comes to games my phone is basically a NES/SNES/GBA emulator now.

> Piracy is a lot more apparent to a software developer that can't sell anything.

Exactly. People with a product people want find ways to extract money from the transaction and laugh all the way to the bank. Losers whine about the unfairness of life.

Sorry, people made heaps of money selling games on the PC and piracy was and is rampant. Every pirated copy is NOT a lost sale. Every pirated copy isn't even a total loss if worked right.

Option one is a world of locked platforms with no piracy. It comes in two flavors, a Hell on Earth police state to enforce it or a land of skittles shitting unicorns that deosn't exist. Option two is what we have now and pretty much always have had, where piracy exists and is a problem but not an insurmountable one. Hollywierd is awash in cash despite the easy duplication of their wares. Multibillion dollar software houses were built on platforms where half or more of the players were running bootleg copies.

Every pirated copy is NOT a lost sale. Every pirated copy isn't even a total loss if worked right.

Yes. Do the business folk even read Slashdot forums? Invaluable marketing information is here to be had for free, no less. Is business information, like a game, considered more valuable if there is a hefty price associated with it?

What is it business folk want anyway? Is it raw information from the customer who is openly revealing what he will open his wallet for? Or maybe the business folk want busine

There is no "sense of entitlement", just 30 years of computing history to contradict idiots like you. You don't have to abuse the end user to have a gaming platform that allows developers to make money.

Linux as an example of "where this is going"? Linux was never a well marketed gaming platform. Yet it is gaining ground lately. It's doing so because the actual numbers contradict your nonsense.

"You don't have to abuse the end user to have a gaming platform that allows developers to make money."Is asking the user to actually pay for their software abusive? And there is a large number of people who do live their lives with a sense of entitlement. People who want free games, free applications, free OS, free music, and free movies.

If alternative free software is readily available and you're blocking it in an attempt to shovel your crap-ware, then YES!

And yes, I'm a programmer and I live with a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to controlling what software I put on my systems. I'm entitled to be EXTREMELY selective about any bit-stream I might decide to run, especially those that cost me cold hard cash.

People who want..., free OS,...

You're kidding me right? Tons of really talented people have spent large portions of their life creating software that they'd merely love for me to be able to freely use and I'm in entitlement mode if I want to honor their work by using it as originally intended?

"You don't have to abuse the end user to have a gaming platform that allows developers to make money."
Is asking the user to actually pay for their software abusive? And there is a large number of people who do live their lives with a sense of entitlement. People who want free games, free applications, free OS, free music, and free movies.

If they're not paying then the software is not priced correctly. Most people would pay for software if they consider it worth the money. The real underlying problem is that the software developers / music labels / movie studios believe their product to be worth more than people are willing to pay, and many also believe that suing the public and imposing draconian restrictions on what they are allowed to do with their hardware will somehow make everyone see the error of their ways and start paying them what

I would suggest that the fact that it's so much more risky to steal physical goods has a lot more to do with it than any reamings people get, or fear they will get.

When people get reamed by some physical product (hehe), they don't go steal the next version of that horrible product. They don't go out and steal a similar product made by a competitor. They either take it back, or just make a pfffft sound and go buy something else, especially if that something costs a dollar. If you are lured into buying a shitty cup of coffee by one of those cardboard foldouts with a picture of coffee and a hot chick on it, do you vow to steal all coffee forever to retaliate against the purveyors of shitty coffee tricking people out of their hard earned Sackies?

Of course not. Why? Because you know you are much more likely to get caught and punished.

Even if you end up buying several cups of shitty coffee from multiple vendors, each time tricked by subliminal advertising, you are STILL only out several bucks. At that point most people come to realize that a one dollar cup of coffee tends to suck, and maybe look into buying bubble gum or something with that dollar instead.

A lot of us will steal in safer circumstances, though. Every coffee service with a donation box that I have ever encountered is chronically underfunded. I know many people that shoplifted as kids, and have vivid memories of edging out the record store with an LP pressed against my belly, while my buddies distracted the clerk. I did it until I got caught.... which was something I had assigned a very remote probability to up until then.

We pirate digital goods because we're pretty sure can get away with it. We can hide our nefarious doings with our constitutionally protected privacy. We goad powerful corporations into undermining our privacy to protect their interests, and it's a lot of time, money, and effort to fend them off. If they are successful, the penalty will have been much worse that a shoplifting bust, all so we can have dollar apps for free.

We pirate digital goods because we're pretty sure can get away with it.

There's also a pretty high convenience factor. I have an old friend from college who used to pirate mp3s. Once Amazon started making available mp3s of nearly every album, he started buying them. It was easier to do that than to find them on various file-sharing networks, especially considering the fake files that are out there, slow uploaders, etc.

Same kind of thing with movies and TV shows, only this time with iTunes. One click and he has the media. No mussing with torrents, no gnutella, no corrupted rar files, and no going to the store.

This doesn't mean that the piracy was okay. However, piracy is a fact of life. Some content makers have figured this out and adapted, and they're probably doing better than they would have had they failed to adapt. Right versus pragmatic [marco.org] is a pretty good explanation of it.

>>>When people get reamed by some physical product (hehe), they don't go steal the next version of that horrible product

I do.When an ebay seller sold me a DVR that didn't work and refused to take it back, I then bought a second DVR from the same guy and claimed "It never arrived," and got a refund via paypal. So I had two DVRs; the first one that was broke and the second one working (which is what the seller should have sent immediately instead of refusing to help).

People will pirate pretty much anything, as long as there are people who are willing to crack and people who are willing to download. There's nothing you can do about it.

The scale of piracy, however, is highly dependent on the quality of the pirated version compared to the original. As long as you do everything you can to make your paying customers happy, there's no reason to worry. Business models based on DRM, DLC, etc. that do nothing except annoy your players, will see a higher piracy rate simply because you made the pirated version that much more better than what you sell.

Windows as a platform, at least until Vista/7/8, did nothing to enforce app piracy. That was left purely to the developer. App development was as open as could be - MS imposed no restrictions on distribution and left DRM and similar to the application developer.

Can the author of this editorial kindly explain why there are numerous profitable applications for Windows, during the XP era?

Can you name a few? Honest question. Bonus if you can name companies who aren't moving to the web and/or in decline.

Translation:

Can you search Google for me? Honest question. Bonus if you can name companies who are stagnant and failed to improve their products.

As for names: http://www.softwaretop100.org/global-software-top-100-edition-2011 [softwaretop100.org]. I assume you're smart enough to know which of these develop succesful Windows software (hint; the vast majority)."Moving to the web" is not so much a move away from traditional platforms as it is extending business onto a quickly growing and prospering platform. Software companies that don't atleast experiment with the web as a software platform are planning to fail.

I seriously doubt it, too, but not because of piracy. Android is an OS for limited-function devices. Thus, most apps are also limited in their functionality. Unfortunately, low-end apps are a dime a dozen. You can't really manage high margins if any random developer can make a knock-off in a few months, undercut you by 50%, and kill your sales faster than you can say, "Oops, I guess I overpriced my product". So unless your app is just freaking brilliant, you pretty much have to hope for high volume, which is a lot harder to achieve.

My thoughts exactly. If being designed for pirates means that they do nothing to stop pirates then Android is designed for pirates. As is Windows, Linux, OSX, and probably every OS except iOS. Not counting consoles that is. That doesn't mean its impossible to make money selling applications for those platforms.

First of all, I don't think selling games for Windows is all that profitable, at least when it comes to single player / offline games (which is the bulk of the Android games). Piracy is huge, that's why the whole industry shifted towards consoles and online during the last decade or so. I'm sure there are some AAA games generating money, but it's pretty much a "the winner takes it all" situation. I'd be glad to be pointed to evidence stating the opposite, but I'm under the impression it's just a handful of publishers who are getting rich and the rest of the industry isn't getting a lot out of selling PC games.

But more significant I think is the fact that Windows is basically a monopoly and for most users synonymous with the PC. People don't think about using Windows, they aren't choosing it consciously, which means the demographic of who is using Windows is pretty much "everyone". So despite the insane amounts of piracy on the Windows platform, that demographic still includes a lot of folks who don't know how to pirate a game or don't mind paying for a game and aren't all that interested in piracy, because everybody uses Windows.

Android on the other hand is in a whole other market. There isn't a clear monopolist when it comes to handhelds, there are all sorts of platforms competing for a piece of the mobile pie. Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain. The result of this situation is that the number of Android users who are actually willing to pay for their applications is very, very low.

In my view, this is why it is *a lot* harder for Android to be a profitable ecosystem for developers than it ever was for Windows.

Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain.

Really? So there are no Android users in between these two extremes? 10,000,000 people have bought the Galaxy S3 which is an expensive phone. You are trying to say that all of those people are tech savvy people who "know how to pirate software"? Millions of people bought the S2 in its heyday. Are you saying the same thing about those people? And if it's all about the tech nerds buying the expensive Androids why aren't they all just getting Galaxy Nexus's since that's the one with the unlockable bootloader out of the box. Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain.

Now that we've explored your hypothesis and found it lacking, has it occurred to you that there are actually people out there that walk into a phone shop with plenty of money to spend, look at the options available including Blackberry, iPhone, Windows, etc. and then *gasp*, decide to buy Android because they like it? If that hasn't occurred to you then maybe you should have a look at your biases.

The publisher themselves often included the security that the O/S did not - things like serial numbers, key generation, and call-home authentication.

I have not been using windows from a while, but I remember there used to be quite a while of keygens (key generator, for those who are born in the 2000's) and cracks (copy protection work-arounds for those born in the 2010's) for every successful windows software (and most crappy ones too). And they were, and still are, making many.

The reason is they are useful high-quality professional software, and in a professional environment you're ok to pay fat cash for good stuff. The problem with Android apps is that they pretend to stuff up a quickly hacked piece of crap, an put commercial in it and also want you to pay for it. This does not work. It would not work in iOS too, but you know, 30% of world population are idiots.

It is "nerds" who invented all the platforms this person is selling or not selling stuff on, and it is "nerds" who wrote the code he sells. The term "nerd" is offensive and derogatory. At this point, I don't even care what he is talking about because I'm so pissed about how he is saying is.

I've read what the man has to say, and it really is as offensive as the summary makes it to be. He basically says that walled garden is a good thing because it prevents users from pirating apps, which is good for (his) business. He doesn't care that users are limited in many other legal activities as a side effect - he actually acknowledges it, but then immediately dismisses it as "something only nerds care about". In short, he really is that much of an asshole.

He is right in the sense that more "technical" people have other needs or mindset then the general public. There is a whole book about this particularly stuff "The inmates are running the asylum".

Non technical people don't care about rooting, dual core, flash, "freedom",... They just want to have a fun and hassle free experience... . And to some dismay vertical or even tight integration or control can be a path to a fun and hassle free experience.

What if someone finds a way, *GULP*, to root iOS devices like they do with those Android phones!?! They'll be able to install pirated iOS apps!

Rooting an iOS device requires some effort, some risk. Not much but it doesn't take much to deter people from going that route. In contrast on many Android devices rooting is unnecessary, just going into settings and allowing apps from "unknown sources".

"Nerds like to say that people care about choice at that level. Nerds are wrong. Nerds care about choice, and nerds are such a tiny minority of people that nobody else much cares what the hell they think."

I think this guy just sold me my first Android phone. Also:

"If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down."

Yeah, because no one ever could figure out a way to make money selling Windows software.

Last summer I interviewed at a startup that was trying to hire 4 people to work on a collaborative mobile game. I got an offer but didn't take the job, but the lead architect said they were targeting iOS and not Android because of the piracy situation on Android. The money is on the iOS side. We can all guess about the reasons, but that's the simple reality.

A few years ago we discussed that already here. A key difference is that for Android there are lots and lots of free (ad-supported) apps available, while for iOS the norm is that apps are paid for (at least that was then; I don't know the current situation on the iOS side). As such the amount of money spent by iOS users is orders of magnitudes higher than that spent by Android users; Apple generally targeting the up-market users with more cash to spend helps as well.

People are casually forgetting that Google introduced the option to DRM your apps with Jelly Bean and beyond. This is a problem that has essentially been fixed, especially as manufacturers roll out the new version of Android (which is the real problem with Android: that might never happen in the case of many phones). It's a year out probably before lots of people are actually running Jelly Bean, but the process has begun.

Yeah, never heard that before. "It's not my fault, OMGTEHQQS clearly, you don't pay for it not because my idea isn't super awesome, and sucks, it's clearly because you're all pirates and steal my software for how awesome it is."

Right, is that what you're telling your investors?

Oh, and every fat nerd who doesn't take care of themselves isn't constantly thought of by every hot woman in the world simply because other people have pirated their hotness, or is just too orgasmic to think about.It has nothing to do with their lack of ambition to be a good catch.

Sure, being a mediocre at best title isn't an excuse for "stealing" it- but in the same vein, even with fairly SOLID DRM in Google's Store model, he couldn't cut it and blames piracy (I want to see PROOF before I buy his "piracy" excuse...).

The thing that cheeses me off about the entire post is his dismissive about "nerds" as if they are the cause of all his "piracy" ills. First and foremost, market share IS a good indicator of what people want, and Android has that market share. Sure not any single phone manufacturer has Apple beat, but the PLATFORM of Android is eating iOS's lunch, relatively speaking, and continues to do so, in spite of the recent updates to the Apple handset line. I'm not knocking iOS as a platform... if people like it, people like it. But it seems to me that if this blogger was paying attention, he'd realize that people don't WANT a locked down DRM infested, closed and obnoxious to the paying customer platform. THAT is why they pick Android over iOS.

I'm sorry, but this guy's got a boner for iOS and thinks he can't do anything until Android is as locked down and "secure" as his preferred platform. That's not just delusional, but like we nerds say "WE don't CARE what you think."

He's dismissive of "nerds" because he sees himself as a minority he is not a part of, and a group that should be both dismissed and attacked. His stance is offensive and, frankly, we're all better off that he's just a developer posting on a blog and not a lobbyist or politician who could truly damage our rights and freedoms.

I just paid for a $10 app. Why? Because it actually does something useful: (http://www.backcountrynavigator.com) as opposed to your iCrap application. In additiona, the company actually remembers the "old fashioned" ways to sell things... you know, marketing, sales, and support. I was able to install the demo version and test out all of the features (it wasn't crippleware) to make sure it worked as advertised. The app is also top notch as far as Ux and does what it says it does. The marketing video and "how to use the app" are also top notch. The purchase button was right there, so before I could even go to the piratebay, I hit the purchase button.

You want people to pay for apps? Stop producing iCrap... or make your apps free, because that's about all they're worth.

Piracy exists on every platform that ever had any relevant level of market share...Windows does nothing to hinder application piracy for instance.

Piracy popularises the platform, and what would you rather have, 10% of a million users, or 90% of a thousand users? Some will pay, some won't, and those who don't usually wouldn't have anyway, but on the other hand they are increasing your user base, viewing your ads and have now heard of your company and may well recommend your apps to their friends, some of whom may well buy them.

Windows succeeded largely because both it and the applications running on it could be pirated. If it was not possible to pirate windows, then a significant proportion of the world would be running something else, either linux or something else that they can pirate. Were that the case, MS would have significantly less influence over the market, their paying customers would be less locked in and a lot of those who buy software would be using alternatives too.

MS pretty much owe their existence to piracy... Bill Gates even admitted he would prefer users to run a pirated windows than a competitor.So do Adobe, if everyone who pirated photoshop used something else then it would have a lot less mindshare.

If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down.

Fuck you, control freak asshole. If you want to sell your products then you need to provide a compelling case to your customers. Otherwise, you need to accept that your shit will be pirated and you need to figure out if what you are selling covers your cost. And if you're feeling real insecure, figure out your own security system.

But don't go saying that I need to be treated like the enemy by my own property. My property is mine and will do as I say. You are welcome to have your software on my property, but it isn't going to bow to your demands and fulfill your wishes.

Mat Gemmell is an authoritarian asshole who hates that people are free to do with on their Android devices. I bet he hates PCs with a burning fury and would prefer I have no freedom whatsoever. I bet he's pissed that I can choose not to buy his software. Fuck him.

I've met more than one developer who's had his application pirated by the basement kids and/or the Russians, Chinese or Indians. Years of work and investment down the drain in an instant.

Really? I'm finding it hard to believe.

Instead of $15000 a copy for the engineering application, revenue drops to zero almost overnight as folks overseas bit torrent the cracked version and its attendant viruses.

Yeah, right.

So, the argument goes, you charged too much. Well, if you weren't such a moron, you'd realize that all markets have a finite size. If your market pool worldwide is 1000 specialized engineering organizations in foreign countries, you have to charge a certain amount to make it worth your while. You can't go down to $10. What's the point?

Then logically Autodesk, Dassault systems, etc. should all be out of business. Oh wait...

So yes, to have a viable business, you have to lock it down.

No, you have to cover your own ass. You don't go around demanding that I become your prisoner for your profit's sake.

Companies and individuals usually pay up, once they have no choice.

Indeed, people will do many things when given no choice. But your profits are not justification for taking capability and freedom to do as I wish out of my hands.

This isn't an attack on Android, it's an attack on anything open-source, anything that gives the user the slightest bit of control or freedom. Yes, we are much better off in a completely locked down ecosystem where we can't even change the default browser, where you had best hope the owners of said ecosystem don't decide to compete with their own app that does a similar thing, or you'll get wiped off the one-and-only app store without a care or an explanation from them.

Yes, I'm blatantly talking about Apple here. However, I don't mean to sound like I'm ragging on iOS, or Apple in general, I'm merely pointing out that the opposite end of the spectrum has its own set of issues as well.

Android does have a piracy problem, but it stems mostly from a single tickbox that allows you to install apps that don't come from Google, the same tickbox that lets you install alternative app stores that don't necessarily have the same limitations or guidelines as the Play Store. If you take away that tickbox, I'm not sure the ecosystem will benefit more than it will be hampered.

Plenty of developers seem to be raking in the money on Android, they just use a different approach than they do on iOS. Instead of "Pay up front and be done with it", it's more "Get it free and supplement with in-app purchases" or "ad supported". Angry birds did the latter, Dead trigger (the one the "Piracy" reference was made about earlier this week) did the former. Their app is getting a lot of press, I will be interested to see just how well they do now.

It's not even an attack on open source, it's an attack on all open platforms - a far broader definition. For example, Windows is an open platform (since it permits you to run any app that you want on it, and otherwise gives you full control over the machine). So is OS X. You don't have to be a FLOSS fan to get irked at this guy.

People jailbreak and pirate apps on the iPhone as well. It's not even hard from what the people I know who own an iPhone. I'd say the people buying Androids probably are going for it because it's cheaper, or that their are Options that are cheaper. People want Options when buying a phone because they want to see if their is something closer to their budget. We've seen lots of things showing how iPhone users and Apple Users are more willing to part with their cash. People who are Cheap or are less willing to part with their cash might be more willing to go with a Pirated version before they consider buying it, but that's just me making assumptions. I don't understand the fascination with getting apps on my phone. A few apps are needed to make it useful beyond a phone, but I prefer my PC for PC tasks and my Consoles for my Gaming tasks.

So, the author has a theory, that sales on top of a fundamentally open platform have an inherent problem because the platform itself is "built for piracy".

Android may be open, but Ubuntu Linux is even more open, no? I mean, on Android you've got a bunch of closed-source components, particularly around payment processing and app purchase, right?

It's going to be very interesting to see how Steam fares on Ubuntu. How many developers are going to sell their games for Linux this way? Once things have been out for a while, how will the piracy rates on Linux, Windows, and MacOS (for the same application via the same delivery mechanism) compare to each other?

Also: I wonder what the author thinks of GoG. They seem to be making enough to stay in business, even though one of their selling points is "no DRM, at all, period, ever".

(Frankly, I think the bigger reason Android has more of a piracy problem than iOS has more to do with the number of budget phones on prepaid plans that run Android. Leaving all other issues aside, Android's considerably more likely to be in the hands of a cheapass than iOS is.)

make apps good enough to pay for? I hear a lot about piracy on cell phones, I don't see a lot of evidence of it. I know a lot of people with android phones, I've never really seen any of them pirate an app, even those who regularly pirate software on their PC or whatever. Why? Because most apps aren't worth pirating. I have a handful of apps that I've paid for because they're valuable and unique enough for me to do so. Most I don't, because most apps are so simple, even if there is a good paid app available there is almost certainly a free app that is just as good. Sure I could pay for a nice alarm clock or twitter manager, but I could also download one of the hundreds that are available for free or are supported by ads. Adding a tirade about "nerds" just makes me think this guy maybe should have taken a few minutes to breath before writing this up. If you want me to take your opinion seriously, how about not insulting me throughout?

In addition to a lot of the arguments being made here against Mr. Gemmell's rationale, he's not even thinking creatively about the alternative ways a revenue stream could be generated. Case in point: I just played a Flash game yesterday that shows a video ad while loading. The ad unlocked additional features of the game for that playthrough.

But Mr. Gemmell doesn't consider developing new, innovative possibilities like this. He just wants the cash, and will happily use the "locking down" of other peoples' machines on a widespread basis to achieve this. Where's the "locking down" of the property rights that are supposed to come with buying something, like an Android? If it's my device, why wouldn't I have root? It would be apropos if Mr. Gemmell made enough money to buy a car, only to have it stolen within the first couple of weeks.

Mr. Gemmell makes it sound only right for companies and developers to "protect" their [currently-only-imagined] profits, but it comes at the expense of the property rights of the users. So he argues for further inroads on users' access to their own machines, while attempting to make it seem natural, fair and just.

It's true. Android isn't popular because it's "open", it's popular because after the iPhone launch handset manufacturers were clamouring for an OS to compete with it, and Google just happened to have Android under development and told everyone "Here, you can use this. It's free." The handset manufacturers clamped onto it because it meant they didn't have to go to the trouble of developing their own modern mobile OS.

If Microsoft, or even Palm, had had their shit together at the time, Android may have just been a niche OS today. But they didn't, so here we are.

I'm guessing most of the full time developers reading/. also do some programming for fun. Perhaps because they really want to have a certain type of application, or because they think they have an idea that'll make them rich. Maybe because they read about some algorithm and would like to have a go at it themselves or just because they enjoy the act of creating something new. Some even program for fun because they enjoy being part of a community. There are probably dozens of other reasons why people develop code in their spare time. But most of all; there joy of doing something is in itself reason enough to do it.

I feel sorry for you if you lost your passion for development and became a soulless office drone.

I have been playing with computers (and writing programs) for well over 30 years. I have my own small business that has nothing to do with computers. Computers are my hobby; if I made it into my job then what would I do for fun?

Right now I'm reading and experimenting with OO programming (GTK, actually), something that I've never really looking into until just a couple of weeks ago, and it's a whole new world compared to the stuff that I've done before.

I write programs for a living. I also do it for fun. It's not particularly far-fetched.

Back in 1986 or so, I noticed that I didn't really have a convenient way to keep track of telephone numbers. So I wrote a Desk Accessory for my Mac to do just that. At the time, my job didn't include programming so I wrote it in my spare time. When it seemed like it was working pretty well, I binhexed it up and put it on one of those shareware boards with the request that the users send me whatever they would like.

He probably wants to eat food, yes. But there is no law guaranteeing that he can earn money for his food using a business model he just happened to dream up. Impossible to make money developing third-party software for Android? Well, maybe. But that only means one thing: Don't try. Just because music and movies seemed to do well for such a long time using a broken business model doesn't mean that everyone who has ideas is entitled to copy that broken model and get filthy stinking rich.

Then he can go get a fucking job. armchair game writing is like playing music at a local bar, you are a complete moron if you think you will make you living doing that.

anyone that writes an app and thinks the money will just come rolling in, then they are one of the stupidest people on the planet. ASSUME you will have 50% piracy, and pray it's not more than that. anyone that did any research at all into software publishing knows this.

If 50% of android apps are pirated, then there are a bunch of 'app collectors'. People who grab the app and never use it. I have yet to meet a single person that pirates android apps. I have no doubt that they are out there, but I haven't met a single one. It is actually the only media platform that I have seen 0 piracy. Every other one from Atari 2600 to TV to music to iOS I have seen piracy on.

It is theoretically possible that there is some grand conspiracy by the all of the other Android users to

What a jerk. He probably wants to eat food, buy a house, see a doctor, and raise a family.:-) Open source sharing is great with programmers, but with the rest of the world it's a one-way street.

The TFA is not arguing against open source, he's arguing against open platforms. He seems to have a problem with the fact that Android, for example, lets people sideload apps from outside the app store, which to him means that they can rip an app from one phone and install it on another without paying him.

In other words, he is basically complaining that Android gives users enough freedom that they can use it to engage in piracy. And advocates for iOS and other platforms which constrain all users on the grounds that they cannot possibly be allowed to do anything that might be used to undermine the ability of app developers (and the associated Apple cut) to make profit.

So, yes, he is a jerk. He thinks that his right to make money following a particular business model overrides my right to own a device where I retain full control. I sincerely wish him to go out of business.

The TFA is not arguing against open source, he's arguing against open platforms.

He conflates the two. Whether it's deliberate or out of ignorance, I can't tell.

He seems to have a problem with the fact that Android, for example, lets people sideload apps from outside the app store, which to him means that they can rip an app from one phone and install it on another without paying him.

That's precisely his problem. He wants users to be trapped similarly to how they are on iOS, where nothing runs without Apple's approval. He wants the platform to serve his interests first and foremost, with the user constrained to a narrow envelope.

So, yes, he is a jerk. He thinks that his right to make money following a particular business model overrides my right to own a device where I retain full control. I sincerely wish him to go out of business.

An understatement. But yes, basically all of this. Sadly, he'll probably dismiss all of the discussion on Slashdot with a "stupid neckbeards" like he does in his article.

Maybe there's a middle ground. Apps loaded from the store are ridiculously DRMed but you can sideload too?

I wouldn't mind that. No need for "ridiculous DRM" even, just encrypt them with a device key embedded in the hardware. Then I can choose to buy them if I want to, or sideload if I don't (or mix and match as desired).

I remember this same kind of thing happened back in the old days. There was this one operating system that later had a GUI laid on top of it called Windows. It seemed like everything was pirated including the OS itself. Anyway it completely hampered the industry. The incentive to write software was destroyed by piracy as more floppies were copied than paid for. The industry went into a downward spiral and nearly collapsed several times over the last few decades. The software industry hobbles along today and hardly anyone has even heard of Windows and nobody makes any money off of it.

BTW the same thing happened in the music and movie industries. Ever since the introduction of cassette tapes for both audio and video the industry has struggled to stay afloat. We see this mostly as budgets and revenues for music and movies continue to shrink.

Okay that was a little sarcastic but I think the doomsday view of piracy is a little overboard. Every industry has shrinkage when it comes to products. The is partially caused by damage to product, sometimes shelf-lives, but mostly theft. In some areas it can be more than 5%/month and physically removes the product from your possession in addition to the time to buy/use/display that product.

So where do we go from that. Well a store takes precautions to limit factors of shrinkage but only so far. They don't frisk customers down but they may tag everything and try to put sensors by the doors. This is marginally effective. Difficult to remove packaging also helps to reduce theft but annoys customers. Stores also take their shrinkage into consideration when calculating overhead. If 5% of your product evaporates you have to make up for it in your prices.

Now how can we apply this to software. Well some precautions can be taken but they generally aren't very effective. It only takes one person out of billions to figure it out and share it. So you have to weigh the costs of implementing copy restrictions which includes the man-hours to develop that code and the inconvenience to paying customers. The shrinkage rate needs to be taken into consideration. Software shrinkage would be unsustainable if you actually lost product every time but you don't. There is opportunity costs but no costs associated with replacing the product.

It's sort of a mix between shrinkage and market penetration. What software are you creating? What is the piracy rate for that type of software? If there's a possible market of 10,000,000 people and similar products suffer a 90% piracy rate then you better plan on having at most 1,000,000 people when planning costs. If it's not worth it, then it's not worth it. It'll be okay. Some companies will make money and some won't. Maybe think of it as advertising costing 90% of your revenue.

I dunno. I think this boils down more to the fact that Apple users in general are more willing to pay for things that Windows users expect to get for free. I don't think that "open" versus "closed" really has anything to do with it.

Game developers didn't seem to have any trouble making money for similarly "open" platforms before. Android isn't any more "open" than what game developers have been dealing with for 30 years. There seems to be some confusion about just what kind of "open" we're talking about here.

Perhaps people that aren't as prone to spend money to impress others are just less likely to blow it in general.